Leopold...I just dont get ity.

I choose leupold scopes because they have never let me down in the field when it comes to performance. Their company stands behind their product and the price I pay is worth what im getting.

I like them.
 
Re: Leupold...I just don't get it.

Oh, it's actually only $4,300. What a relief. I'll order one today.

Setting the Mark 8 aside for a minute, let's focus on scopes the average shooter could actually afford to buy. ...

... Here's my opinion about Leupold vs Vortex. For a hunting scope, I would recommend paying the extra 25% premium for a Leupold.

And reasonably comparable Leupold offerings versus Zeiss Conquest and Sightron SII Big Sky or the Sightron SIIIs? The glass in any of these scopes smoked the Leupold VX 3s to my eyes, when I owned all of them and compared them side by side in the evening, continuously until failing light (darkness). That was about 5-6 years ago. Perhaps Leupold has a Hubble version of the VX-3 today.
 
Care to elaborate? What models were they? I'm running two VariX-III's on a pair of Winchester M70s. 7mm mag wears a 3.5-10x 40mm while my 300RUM sports a 4.5-14x 40mm AO. I put the one on the 7mm back in 2000, and it hasn't moved since. I think I clicked the elevation up one step a few years ago. I find the eye relief very forgiving on the rifle, and everyone who has shot it has fallen in love with the setup. Now the other scope, I haven't had to adjust the scope since I sighted it in in 2002. My one complaint against it, the eye relief is more intolerant vs the other scope, and at times drives me nuts. It has held up to a lot of ammo being shot thru this sporter weight, unbraked RUM.

My post probably came off more negative than anything, that wasn't the purpose and I should have elaborated a bit more to. I have had Leopolds on 300wm, and I actually have one sitting on a 35 Whelen right now, and know that they can hold up to the larger calibers.......BUT my personal preference in scope selection when it comes to $ and investments is I feel that I can get superior optics all around for the same amount of coin going with other brands. As far as clarity and light gathering capabilities I have found that I can get more out of other optics for a better price. Just one man's 0.02.

jrg
 
Re: Leopold...I just dont get it.

The evidence is on the target. My Leupold puts the holes as close to the center of the target as the Nightforce on the rifle next to mine on the firing line; for a lot less money. The defense rests.

The defense might rest, but on the above statement, the defense would lose. Nightforce isn't the only scope out there besides Leupold. I'll put my Sightron Siii up against your Leupold any day of the week.
 
Re: Leopold...I just dont get it.

The defense might rest, but on the above statement, the defense would lose. Nightforce isn't the only scope out there besides Leupold. I'll put my Sightron Siii up against your Leupold any day of the week.

You could do that and probably not resolve anything. However, if you went in to the competition with an open mind comparison with let's say a Mark 4 6.5-20 LR/T and a SIII LRMOA 6-24x50 at failing light. Not knowing which was which, basing your choice on optical performance in low light, you would choose the Leupold 10 out of 10 times.
 
Re: Leupold...I just don't get it.

You could do that and probably not resolve anything. However, if you went in to the competition with an open mind comparison with let's say a Mark 4 6.5-20 LR/T [$1300 http://swfa.com/Leupold-65-20x50-Mark-4-LRT-30mm-Riflescope-P51668.aspx] and a SIII LRMOA 6-24x50 [$915 http://swfa.com/Sightron-6-24x50-SIII-30mm-Riflescope-P48419.aspx] at failing light. Not knowing which was which, basing your choice on optical performance in low light, you would choose the Leupold 10 out of 10 times.

I've not compared the two, but this Leupy model at SWFA commands a 42% greater cost. I'd expect something more for that extra $385.
 
And reasonably comparable Leupold offerings versus Zeiss Conquest and Sightron SII Big Sky or the Sightron SIIIs? The glass in any of these scopes smoked the Leupold VX 3s to my eyes, when I owned all of them and compared them side by side in the evening, continuously until failing light (darkness). That was about 5-6 years ago. Perhaps Leupold has a Hubble version of the VX-3 today.

Conquests and Conquest HDs use simple doublet objective lenses, like most other scopes below about a $1,500 price point, so don't expect a big difference in resolution. Otherwise, Zeiss optics are quite good. Stray light management is good and image contrast is high. Zeiss lens coatings are quite good as well.

Sightron optics are made by Kenko and use Kenko lens and coating technology. SII and SIII lens coatings have relatively low transmission in the blue, which degrades nighttime performance. Leupold VX-3 and Mark 4 variable power scopes have a blue-enhanced lens coating (XT). Sightron external lens coatings are also softer than the Leupold external DiamondCoat2 coatings.

Also, SII and SIII scopes do not have good stray light management, and image contrast is average at best. Between Sightron and Leupold, my vote for a hunting scope still goes to Leupold. Yes, the nearest Leupold model will cost more. That extra cost comes from American labor, no questions asked warranty, and better designs and coatings. Actually, I'm not a big fan of Leupold, but they do know how to build scopes.

Regarding low-light performance in general, the biggest factors determining perceived brightness are exit pupil and magnification. Differences between lens coatings usually have a smaller effect, and differences between lens materials have almost no effect.

Paul, When doing side-by-side tests in low light, I've found that it is not easy to insure that both scopes are set to the same exit pupil size and magnification. You would have to share the details of your side-by-side comparison for me to understand why the Leupold lost.
 
Re: Leupold...I just don't get it.

And Leupold has named this Model "The Hubble", I presume?

Perhaps you should approach things with a little more of an open mind...........you might be amazed at what you learn. Did you even know that the Leupold Mk8 even existed prior to my post? (Be honest now as I doubt you did)


Here's another one for you: Leupold Optics Mark 4 ER/T 6.5-20x50mm (34mm) M5A2 Locking Adj. - | Leupold Optics

I have two of these, they are ffp, MIL/MIL with a locking elevation dial, capped windage 34mm tube and another awesome scope..........it's closest competitor I'd the NF ATAC( I have a buddy with one, he's a NF guy), but it's only second focal plane.

Another thing I love is how all you guys can look through a scope side by side in a store, outside or wherever......hold up your big fat thumb and proclaim that one is clearly better than other, really?

Have you ever seen a Leupold fail, I have.......their biggest issue is loosing their ability to track, usually on the elevation dial......had it happen to me once in twenty years. I sent it back and got it reconditioned and it works fine now, no questions asked.

Ever seen a Vortex fail?, I have...just two weekends ago we had a new guy out shooting with us and he had a Viper PST on a .308.....half way through the day it looked like some paint chips or something came loose from the inside of his tube....there were big black specs of something all over his field of view and they changed with every shot!! Damnedest thing I've ever seen, I'm sure that Vortex will take care of him.....i hope, if it were a Leupold I'd know for sure!!
 
Paul, When doing side-by-side tests in low light, I've found that it is not easy to insure that both scopes are set to the same exit pupil size and magnification. You would have to share the details of your side-by-side comparison for me to understand why the Leupold lost.

Thanks Bruce. I was hoping you would take the time to respond, since I know you're in the scope business, and more up to date and knowledgeable on current scope offerings than I. I'll provide some information to allow you to evaluate my testing. I know that exit pupil is a by product of objective lens diameter divided by power magnification. I didn't adjust power magnification to create equal size exit pupil diameter during my light transmission testing. I realize that the larger diameter objective scopes have the advantage for light transmission under low light conditions, given equal power mag settings. I wanted to compare the actual scopes I owned against one another at equal power settings as the light dimmed, because that's how these scopes would actually perform for me during field/hunting use. Not trying to upset Leupold loyalists, but the light transmission tests on the VX-3 2.5-8x Leupold I owned was disappointingly poor. The difference between the VX-3 and the Zeiss and Sightron SIII was huge. This was the newer VX-3, not the older VariX III. The difference wasn't subtle. There was a lot of difference. No comparison. My buddy came to the same conclusions on light transmission, so we had two sets of eyes reaching the same conclusion.

All resolution testing was also performed at equal power settings across the scopes being compared for resolution. If the lowest powered variable scope maxed out at 8x, then all the other variable power scopes were set to 8x.

I searched the Forum for the comparison testing information I posted following two scope comparison tests. Looks like the first comparison testing was completed in 2007, before I owned any Sightron SIIIs. This Post is dated June 17, 2007. http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/ior-scopes-22912/index3.html#post157764
So my initial test was completed prior to June 17, 2007. I provid this to give information on the versions of the various scopes being tested. Some of the manufacturers' scopes today may not be built the same as they were back then.

I also have read praise regarding the light transmission of IOR scopes but it has always been a 2.5-10x IOR or one of the other IOR 4X power magnification scopes. I've read a lot of forum posts including Snipers Hide, Snipers Paradise, 24 hourcampfire, and many articles, and don't recall a single post or article where anyone has done side by side light transmission comparisons with an IOR 6X power magnification scope. If you're aware of any, I would appreciate your posting the web address so I can take a look. A buddy and I went out one winter evening and compared the following four (4) scopes for light transmission, one being my IOR 3-18x 42mm. We both came to the same consensus, from brightest field of view to dimmest field of view. We did turn all scopes to the same power setting for this comparison.

1st - Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44mm - Brightest, no doubt about it.
2nd - Leupold LPS 2.5-10x45mm
3rd - Leupold VX3 2.5-8x32mm - Similar to IOR.
4th - IOR 3-18x42mm - Dimmest (Similar to the Leupold VX3).

If the 6X IORs are about the 5th best in light transmission then my comparison couldn't prove it. But they may rank highly against other equivalent scopes that also magnify over a 6X power range. My suspicion is that to achieve the 6X power range multiplication that additional lenses may be required. Each additional lens would cause additional loss of light to the eye.

With respect to resolution, we both rated these four scopes as follows:

1st - IOR 3-18x42mm - Notably the best
2nd - Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44mm - Pretty good - similar to Leupold LPS
3rd - Leupold LPS 2.5-10x45mm
4th - Leupold VX3 2.5-8x36mm


I later purchased a Sightron SIII, 6-24x50mm Mil-Dot reticle scope and completed another field comparison test. Same thing. Set up at a private gun range and zero each of the scopes on the 300 yd targets and trees at the end of the gun range an hour before dark, and continue to rotate from scope to scope to compare resolution and light transmission. Set all scopes to the same power, which would have been the highest power setting of the scope with the least power magnification. This post is dated March 3, 2009, so the vintage of the scopes were those manufactured prior to 2009. http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/leupold-sightron-39643/index2.html#post266097
I believe I had sold the Leupold LPS scope by now. This test was completed to compare the better performing scopes from the prior testing, against my newly purchased Sightron SIII.

David, I was afraid someone would ask.

Here's an evaluation I recently conducted and reported for a LRH forum member .
___________________________
"Today I compared the SIII 6-24x50mm to a new IOR 3-18x42mm MP-8 and my Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44mm Mil-Dot scopes. I conducted an elevation turret test on all three scopes at 100 yds. Then I compared all three scopes for resolution and light transmission at 300 yds in the evening (fading) light. The SIII is hitting on all cylinders and I would rate it the best scope of the three - without regard to cost - provided you're content with that 6-24 power range. Based on cost it's obviously the best buy. Here's how I rated these three scopes. I own all three so there's no pride-of-ownership compromises involved in my evaluation.
Resolution.
1) IOR and SIII equally good at 18X. Then I turned the SIII up to 24X and it maintained excellent resolution and improved my ability to resolve details at 300 yds that I was unable to see at 18X through either the IOR or the SIII. In other words, I felt like I obtained the full benefit of the higher powers available in the SIII. Razor sharp.
2) Zeiss provided less resolution with all three scopes tuned to 14X at 300 yds. Still good, but not as sharp as the IOR and SIII.
Light transmission.
1) SIII - best
2) Zeiss - about midway between the SIII and the IOR.
3) IOR – I believe the IOR has some extra lenses in it to provide the 6X power range magnification, and every additional lens will reduce light transmission.
Weight.
1) Zeiss - 17.5 oz - 1" tube
2) SIII - 21.9 oz - 30mm tube
3) IOR - 28 oz - 35mm tube
Parallax Adjustment.
1) SIII - easiest to adjust, however the adjustment operates at a pretty fast rate.
2) IOR - just about as good as the SIII - operates at a slower rate than the SIII.
3) Zeiss - I've never really cared for the parallax adjustment on my Zeiss. It's OK but sometimes a struggle to know if it's set properly.
Crosshair/Reticle.
1) IOR - Best, I really like the IOR MP-8 reticle.
2) SIII and Zeiss - both standard military Mil-Dot.
Cost.
1) SIII ~$800
2) Zeiss~$850 w/o or $950 with target turrets
3) IOR ~$1565 w/illuminated reticle
Elevation Turret Test Results.
SIII: 0.273"/click/100yds in both the UP direction & DOWN direction over a distance of 26" at 100 yards. Same value/click/100yds in both the UP and DOWN directions, however different than the advertised 0.25"/click/100yds. This is why an elevation turret test is mandatory prior to putting any scope into action. Now that I know the IPHY click value, I'll be all set.
Zeiss: 0.243"/click/100yds in the UP direction over a distance of 26" and 36" at 100 yards. No DOWN test completed with Zeiss.
IOR: 0.260"/click/100yds in the DOWN direction over a distance of 26" at 100 yards.
0.250"/click/100yds in the UP direction over a distance of 26" at 100 yards.
The IOR yielded a different value per click per 100 yards in the UP direction versus the DOWN direction. My other IOR is dead nuts on - yielding 0.249"/click/100yds in both directions. This was a brand new IOR scope so I will have to conduct the elevation turret test again and make sure I didn't make a mistake with my calculations and determination.

[IN ORDER TO CLARIFY MY ELEVATION TURRET TESTS: All three scope's elevation turrets returned to zero properly. From a set Zero, I turned the turret in the UP direction and then returned back to zero. Then I turned the elevation turret in the DOWN direction followed by a return to zero. The IOR yielded a slightly different click value when turned in the DOWN direction than in the UP direction, however it and both of the other two scopes returned back to their zero setting correctly.]

I haven't shot the SIII yet but others have already confirmed the turrets are repeatable and that the scope is durable. The SIII has as good, or better, of a replacement warranty as the Zeiss or the IOR. If I were to buy another scope today, it would be another SIII 6-24x50mm Mil-Dot. Sightron is supposed to be adding some additional offerings to their SIII line. Whether there will be additional reticle options or power options, we'll have to wait and see. I understood they're expected to be out in the late summer-fall.

Hope this helps you spend your money wisely. For the money, the SIII is a best buy in my book
." lightbulb
___________________________
The Vortex Viper is another scope that's at least as good as a Leupold VX-3 at a lesser cost, and the Vortex also includes a no fault lifetime warranty. You can run over the Vortex Viper with your GM (or Toyota) and return it for a replacement - no questions asked.

One year earlier I compared my Zeiss Conquest to my Leupold VX-3. The Zeiss Conquest smoked the Leupy in resolution and light transmission. It wasn't really even close. And I'm now telling you that the Sightron SIII bested the Zeiss Conquest in both categories in my recent side-by-side field comparison. The Sightron SIII is Sightron's top of the line scope. Comparing it to the SIs or SIIs is like comparing a Leupold Mark 4 to a Leupold VXII. The current limitations in the SIII series (my opinion) are the power range and the reticle options currently available. I'm led to believe some additional SIII options may become available later this year.

Leupold has made a good solid aiming device for many many years, which is why they still enjoy such a strong following. But there are currently a number of new players competing for their customers, and some are producing a better product with an equal warranty, at a lesser cost. Now I'm going to put my camo face paint back on and try to blend into the background noise...


I then purchased a second Sightron SIII 6-24x50mm scope. So I posted this on April 24, 2010. http://www.longrangehunting.com/for...st-sightron-siii-55908/index2.html#post384772
I don't know if this is common amongst mid-priced scopes or not. I have read of similar experiences from other scope owners. Scopes of the same brand/model can perform a littler better or worse than other identical models.

I provided this head to head comparison of my Zeiss Conquest and Sightron SIII in a Post within another Thread more than 1 year ago. So prices may not reflect current prices.

[I'm referring to the March 3, 2009 Post - the one just prior to this quoted Post.]

I have since purchased another Sightron SIII. I have not conducted another head to head test with my 2nd SIII against the Zeiss Conquest. To be honest, I will say that my 2nd SIII is not quite as good optically as my original SIII. Still good but not quite as good. So I don't know if my 1st SIII was the creme of the crop, or if the 2nd SIII was sub-par. My 2nd one still performs very well in all respects, but the resolution and clarity of the glass is somewhat less than my original SIII.

Sorry. I know this throws the whole idea of SIII quality up in the air with question marks??? But I believe this is somewhat true of many makes and models of scopes. I've read this quite often with the Nightforce scopes over the past three years. Subtle differences in sight pictures between different scopes of the same model. Some have great glass. Some have good glass. I'll probably buy a 3rd SIII unless the feedback on the about-to-be-released Vortex Viper PST line of scopes is overwhelmingly outstanding and too hard to resist.

I've since purchased a 3rd Sightron SIII 6-24x50mm LRMOA scope. I have a strong bias towards lighter weight scopes, and these Sightron's weigh considerably less than the IORs, Nightforce, and Leupold Hubble. My hunting is almost entirely backpack hunting in the mountains, and I wrote off scopes weighing more than about 24 oz after having owned and packed two of the 28 oz IORs. Leupold's mid-prices scopes are on the lightweight side, which I appreciate. What I've observed is that as Leupold has attempted to provide higher quality glass (since 2010), the costs of those scopes with the higher quality glass has gone up substantially. As you've mentioned, it's tough competing with the foreign labor markets.

My head to head scope comparisons are now 4 to 7 years old. And all manufacturers' scopes continue to evolve over the years in order to maintain competitiveness. Some of the very same Leupold models I owned and tested back in 2007 and through 2009 may very well have better glass today. My testing of 4 to 7 yr old models may not be comparable to those same brands and model scopes today. I settled into Zeiss Conquest and Sightron SIIIs in mid-priced scopes, based on the scopes that were available at the time I needed some additional scopes for LRH. Scopes that I could afford and that were light enough for me not to cuss them out while packing them for miles in, up, and down, the mountains of Alaska.

For the Leupold loyalists, I used them for 25 years and still own a couple 2.5-8x variables. I've migrated to the brand and model scopes that best suite my current LRH needs, within the constraints of my income and budget. Lighter weight is a large consideration, and Leupolds provided that. So the primary reason I'm not currently using them is the price premium to obtain similar quality resolution and light transmission. I should also mention I hunt sheep every year and sometimes rely on my rifle scope to judge horn length and count growth rings on the horns. I place a high priority on a resolution of the glass at high magnification power settings. In decent light conditions, my SIIIs provide equally good resolution as IOR scopes that cost much more money.
 
Re: More Leupold Stuff

I suspect the current VX-3 Leupold models may have better glass than the older VX-3 I used in my comparison testing because a bit later I compared a brand new Leupold VX-3 4.5-14x50mm LR scope (30mm tube) to my better performing scopes. I don't remember for certain which scope(s) I compared to the VX-3 . It was probably my Leupold LPS 2.5-10x45mm scope and the Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x50mm. This was a less extensive comparison test on a cold winter evening, as light conditions turned from mediocre to darkness. The resolution thru this Leupold was very close in resolution to one of my scopes that scored well in resolution. And the light transmission was much better than my older Leupold VX-3 2.5-8x36mm. I was favorably impressed with the glass in this later vintage VX-3 LR. Unfortunately, the reticle selection available in that scope were fairly limited, if I recall correctly. And the scope cost as much or more at that time than what I had already settle on, and was content, using.

On a side note, my brother owns and operates a gun shop locally, and has for the past 30 years. He's sold more of the mid-priced bread and butter Leupold scope models than all other brands combined over that period of operation. That's what the majority of his customers seemed interested in, so that's what he predominantly stocked and sold. In the past 7 years, I've noticed he has begun stocking more and more additional brands of scopes, no doubt motivated by customer requests and purchases. Of course he'll order any scope a customer requests. But with respect to what he primarily stocks day in day out on his shelves, I think Leupold scopes are still the most represented single Brand in his shop. That's what many of us used over the years. There was much, much less competition and choice 10 years ago.
 
Re: Leupold...I just don't get it.

Perhaps you should approach things with a little more of an open mind...........you might be amazed at what you learn. Did you even know that the Leupold Mk8 even existed prior to my post? (Be honest now as I doubt you did)

Here's another one for you: Leupold Optics Mark 4 ER/T 6.5-20x50mm (34mm) M5A2 Locking Adj. - | Leupold Optics

I have two of these, they are ffp, MIL/MIL with a locking elevation dial, capped windage 34mm tube and another awesome scope..........it's closest competitor I'd the NF ATAC( I have a buddy with one, he's a NF guy), but it's only second focal plane.

Another thing I love is how all you guys can look through a scope side by side in a store, outside or wherever......hold up your big fat thumb and proclaim that one is clearly better than other, really?

Have you ever seen a Leupold fail, I have.......their biggest issue is loosing their ability to track, usually on the elevation dial......had it happen to me once in twenty years. I sent it back and got it reconditioned and it works fine now, no questions asked.

Ever seen a Vortex fail?, I have...just two weekends ago we had a new guy out shooting with us and he had a Viper PST on a .308.....half way through the day it looked like some paint chips or something came loose from the inside of his tube....there were big black specs of something all over his field of view and they changed with every shot!! Damnedest thing I've ever seen, I'm sure that Vortex will take care of him.....i hope, if it were a Leupold I'd know for sure!!

I hadn't a clue Leupold was marketing and selling a scope model that cost this much money. That's why I call it The Hubble.

My scope comparison tests were more involved than thumb waving. The process is detailed in the above Post. Prior to that testing I spent many hours/days researching this Forum, and other Forums for positive users experiences. I read Shot Show reports from Scott Berrish (Liberty Optics) and Ilya Koshkin (Opticstalk.com). I attended two SHOT SHOWs in Orlando, Florida and focused on the different optics companies. I learned which advice was credible. Based on that research, I purchased the scopes that I thought would best serve my fairly particular needs, within a cost range that would allow me to equip several different rifles for LRH. I also sold some of the inferior scopes I'd been using in prior years, after confirming their performance was lacking compared to new models that were purchases. And then I conducted my field testing with the scopes I ended up purchasing.

I've known Leupolds to require factory warranty service. They have excellent warranty service and customer relations. I believe that excellent service is financially accounted for within their scope pricing. In other words, the customer service and warranty work isn't completely free. Some portion of the cost of each scope sold allows them to deliver this excellent warranty and customer relations service.

I only own one Vortex. A 1-4x Viper PST for mounting on an AR15. I've only owned it for about one month. It will receive very little use on that rifle, so I wasn't as thorough in my pre-purchase research. Still I did complete research prior to purchase and after consuming information from numerous sources, I concluded that the Vortex model was the best thing going in that power range and price range. One Leupold model was identified for a bit more money, but that model wasn't too highly regarded. Leupold also offers a higher end model for close to twice the cost of the Vortex, and that Leupold model was very highly recommended. I chose the Vortex. It's a pretty impressive scope for $400.
 
Bruce,

As always and like others noted, you provided yet another enlightenment for all of us.

Just got back last night from visiting my family in Oxnard and a quick spring break with our son but ran out of time to visit your store. Maybe next time. :)

Ed
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Recent Posts

Top